Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone experiences "mild discomfort" when seeing David (it does display an idealized nude man, which could also be said about the Lena photo, which is far too artistic to be merely called "pornography") then this is still no reason to banish the David photo. If everything gets banned that someone could potentially be mildly offended by, then we would have to ban a hell of a lot of images in research and academi…
You’re comparing Playboy to da Vinci and Michelangelo… if you refuse to see the difference between soft-core porn made with the intent to be sexual and titillating, and art made without any such sexualized intent, then we’re having an unproductive conversation. BTW I’m with you against silly bans, I’m a proponent of free speech. In this case nobody banned anything, the movement is nothing more than a request by a bro…
The Lena image was clearly artistic. If you want to call it, additionally, "soft-core porn", then you would have to do the same with this statue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos
The article contains some sexual context. And then you have no basis of treating David differently, except if you arbitrarily discriminate against one sex but not the other.
> BTW I’m with you against silly bans, I’m a proponent of free speech.
That's nonsense, you did nothing except defending the arguments about alleged sexism.
> In this case nobody banned anything
Completely false. There are journals which ban it, see Wikipedia article. Additionally there is now an indirect ban due to the campaign succeeding in creating a strong negative association, which makes using the image so costly that it isn't a live possibility anymore: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percen...